The fall of Greece *rant*

[Sharwood]

I have never read a poster who can make so little sense with such firm conviction. You sir, deserve a medal. Because we have not yet colonized Canada means that Rome could not have colonized Greece.

I don't believe I have ever glanced upon such a brilliant hypothesis anywhere in all the halls of Academia. I'm astounded. Seriously.

I was thinking the same damn thing. Reading OS88's argument just then was like watching Plan 9 From Outer Space, on acid.

Let me try - and almost certainly fail - to figure out what the HELL OS88 is on about in that one.

Poland and Germany are sizably comparable but they invaded them quite easily. They kicked your butt liked your nothing. The United States could kick Canada just as bad as Germany could Poland. The only thing hurting us is a bad economy. There's no way for us to "absorb" or "vassalize" Canada, and there's no way for Rome to do so to Greece. If America COULD vassalize Canada then I would have made an argument against myself! Thats the whole point that they can't!

The US and Canada are allies. Canada is not an American vassal. Many Latin American states were for a long time. And before you say that America never absorbed them, it did on at least one occasion - Texas. The US cannot properly conquer Canada. Sure, it could militarily take over the country, but there's no way in hell the US could hold Canada, particularly given that such an assault would virtually guarantee everyone uniting against the US.

Germany never vassalised or absorbed Poland. Vassalage is a step to absorption. Like what China did to Tibet in the 50s, just usually over a much longer period and with less violence, as the Chinese didn't wait for Tibet to be assimilated into their system culturally and economically before they took over.

Rome and Greece, on the other hand, are completely different. Canada has massive amounts of economic potential outside of the US. Greece didn't. It's major trading partners were Rome, Carthage (then under Roman control) and other Greek states (some under direct roman control, some not). That's a closed trading system, which meant they were economically under Roman domination. Rome assimilated Greek culture quite admirably, but still retained its own culture. That culture geographically isolated the Greeks from all others. Likewise, Rome limited Greek military power, preventing any sort of uprising against them.

Eventually, like Germany did in Austria, Rome just... Took over. There was violence, yes, in both cases, but less than in a military conquest. That's because the conquest wasn't military - it was cultural, linguistic, economic and political. Greece was not invaded, it was consumed. Absorbed.

Canada does not fit any of the pre-requisites for vassalage, let alone peaceful absorption. Greece, in the time of the Roman Empire, did.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Poland and Germany are sizably comparable but they invaded them quite easily. They kicked your butt liked your nothing. The United States could kick Canada just as bad as Germany could Poland. The only thing hurting us is a bad economy. There's no way for us to "absorb" or "vassalize" Canada, and there's no way for Rome to do so to Greece. If America COULD vassalize Canada then I would have made an argument against myself! Thats the whole point that they can't!

Say that in the bad part of Katowice and you'll come home in a stretcher!

i'm not gonna waste time argueing with you, but Germany never "kicked our ass". Russia did. Have you ever heard of the story of the Polish Post office near Gdansk and how those post office workers who were only armed with small guns and 1 rifle in totol, hold of the germans for weeks until the Germans gassed them? Poland was holding off Germany quite fine, what killed us was the Russians. We got invaded by Russia from the behind. If the Russians never invaded, then Poland might've held off Germany long enough for some aid from France/England.

Please do not argue with me here, i know much more about Polands role in WWII then you'll ever know.

As for the rest i'll let the pack of wolves/posters behind me devour you.

 

[Dachs]

i'm not gonna waste time argueing with you, but Germany never "kicked our ass". Russia did. Have you ever heard of the story of the Polish Post office near Gdansk and how those post office workers who were only armed with small guns and 1 rifle in totol, hold of the germans for weeks until the Germans gassed them? Poland was holding off Germany quite fine, what killed us was the Russians. We got invaded by Russia from the behind. If the Russians never invaded, then Poland might've held off Germany long enough for some aid from France/England.

Please do not argue with me here, i know much more about Polands role in WWII then you'll ever know.

Not that I would want to interrupt this under normal circumstances, but uh, what are you talking about? By 17 September - when the Soviet Union invaded - most major Polish forces opposing the Germans were pocketed: in Warsaw, at the Bzura River (where the counteroffensive was petering out after having made relatively little headway), Kock, Bialystok, west of Zamosc, Lwow, and Rawa Ruska. That's doing a real fantastic job of 'holding them off', there. This isn't a denigration of the contributions made by Polish forces to the Allied war effort - partisan operations, seizure of Warsaw, fighting as paratroopers under the British aegis, fighting in Italy, serving affiliated with the RAF after the fall of Poland itself, making amazing progress on cracking Enigma - but Poland in the September/October '39 campaign wasn't holding its own against Germany. Had the Soviet Union not intervened, sure you would have lasted longer, but to all intents and purposes with the failure of the Bzura River offensive on 16 September (the day before the Soviet Union invaded) Poland had lost, the stand of an isolated post office notwithstanding.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Not that I would want to interrupt this under normal circumstances, but uh, what are you talking about? By 17 September - when the Soviet Union invaded - most major Polish forces opposing the Germans were pocketed: in Warsaw, at the Bzura River (where the counteroffensive was petering out after having made relatively little headway), Kock, Bialystok, west of Zamosc, Lwow, and Rawa Ruska. That's doing a real fantastic job of 'holding them off', there. This isn't a denigration of the contributions made by Polish forces to the Allied war effort - partisan operations, seizure of Warsaw, fighting as paratroopers under the British aegis, fighting in Italy, serving affiliated with the RAF after the fall of Poland itself, making amazing progress on cracking Enigma - but Poland in the September/October '39 campaign wasn't holding its own against Germany. Had the Soviet Union not intervened, sure you would have lasted longer, but to all intents and purposes with the failure of the Bzura River offensive on 16 September (the day before the Soviet Union invaded) Poland had lost, the stand of an isolated post office notwithstanding.

First of all, at the name "kock" is that the anglicized version of Plock?

Second of all, yah that is a pretty pettiful attempy at "holding off" by us but we still managed to hold them off longer then the french.

Anyway WWII isn't really my thing so maybe squonk or someone will provide more insight?

 

[Sharwood]

*Sigh*
Let's not turn this into a who's country survived against Germany longer thread. Let's face it, Poland got hammered, France could have held out but didn't, most countries didn't even do that well.

 

[Dachs]

First of all, at the name "kock" is that the anglicized version of Plock?

No, it's near Lublin, and it's a different city than Plock.

Second of all, yah that is a pretty pettiful attempy at "holding off" by us but we still managed to hold them off longer then the french.

It's not really 'pitiful', Poland was horrendously outnumbered and they also had to contend with well coordinated attacks from multiple directions. Caught in a horseshoe, as it were, between East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, and Slovakia...

 

[TheLastOne36]

No, it's near Lublin, and it's a different city than Plock.

It's not really 'pitiful', Poland was horrendously outnumbered and they also had to contend with well coordinated attacks from multiple directions. Caught in a horseshoe, as it were, between East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, and Slovakia...

Oh i think i know what you mean, the jewish town right?

Well we also were a pretty young country and didn't have that high technology.

 

[flyingchicken]

Well we also were a pretty young country and didn't have that high technology.

You do realize that Germany was out-teched by Russia (as far as I know) at the beginning of their conflicts, right, and that it was superior leadership and organization that won the day (as far as I know)?

 

[Sharwood]

The Russians certainly had better tech in some areas - the T34 was better than anything the Germans had, for example - and superior numbers, but the Germans were still probably ahead of them technologically all-told. It was close though.

 

[sheep21]

T34 is arguably the best tank of the war, however the german panther gets my vote a joint first. The soviet Union was good on the technological front in the early 30's but it all took a nose dive from then onwards till the early 40's.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

You do realize that Germany was out-teched by Russia (as far as I know) at the beginning of their conflicts, right, and that it was superior leadership and organization that won the day (as far as I know)?

Russians had a better tank. That was about it. Germans had more advanced infantry weapons, at the beginning of the war they were further along on nuclear development than anyone, near the end they were getting into rocket and jet technology, years ahead of every other state. Their pre-jet planes were better. Their standard soldier better equipped. And their country had a more developed infrastructure all around.

And yeah, the T-34 clearly outclassed the earliest German tanks. Its simplicity, numbers, and durability even made it all around superior to the more powerful later German tanks. But the Panther (mid-1943) is often regarded as maybe the best overall tank design of the war. Of course it wasn't cheap, wasn't reliable, and so never came close to T-34 numbers...but when it was working on the battlefield, it did outclass the 34.

 

[sheep21]

its early models werent reliable aye, a german weakness was sending new vehicles straight to the front before the kinks were ironed out.

After awhile reliability issues were fixed, only to be replaced by chronic fuel shortages and the quality of build going down hill as resources became scarse. All in all gets my vote as joint best tank of the war (and to be honest probably the best design!)

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

its early models werent reliable aye, a german weakness was sending new vehicles straight to the front before the kinks were ironed out.

After awhile reliability issues were fixed, only to be replaced by chronic fuel shortages and the quality of build going down hill as resources became scarse. All in all gets my vote as joint best tank of the war (and to be honest probably the best design!)

I'd still go the T-34 by a WIDE margin. Alot of armchair generals like to look at nothing but performance. But the fact is simplicity, affordability, reliability, ease of design, production, and maintenance can often be equally important if not more so under certain circumstances. The Panther was 1 for 1 a better tank. But its design came well after the T-34, it was much more sophisticated and expensive to produce, and even once the kinks were ironed out, it wasn't as reliable or durable as the 34.

I mean they produced 6,000 of them vs. 50,000+ T-34's. The up-gunned T-34 could at least share the field with a Panther, because while inferior, it wasn't severely so. And it (T-34) still kicked the hell out of the mainstay of the German tank forces, your Panzer IV's on down. (Talking tank quality, not actual combat. Germans of course were far superior tactically)

 

[sheep21]

it was designed as an answer to the T-34 after all, so is bound to be better, although unlike most german tanks it is not over engineered and did not try to do too much.

I agree with reliability issues, as stated, even after the kinks were sorted out the quality of german equipment got rapidly worse from 1944 onwards as the pinch on resources became worse. I would still say its the best tank design of the war, service history is another thing altogether! Properly built and in suffecient numbers (big mistake investing so much time, effort and money in the likes of the Tiger I & II's) they could have made a difference.

The T-34 did indeed play havoc with german tank forces of earlier designs and when upgunned could take on the panther, but only really from the flanks where the armour was thinner.

Both were excellent designs, the T-34 wins through a combination of great design and astounding manufacturing capacity.

 

[MilesGregarius]

And we all know that without the T-34 Rome could never have absorbed Greece.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And we all know that without the T-34 Rome could never have absorbed Greece.

Except the Greeks had spearmen . . .

 

[Dachs]

Except the Greeks had spearmen . . .

Well, not exactly. But (1/3/1) still oughta be enough to take out a tank, right?

 

[REDY]

Since when did the Greeks become pussies? They fought to the bitter end agaisnt the Persians, but for the Romans they don't even attempt to put up a fight?

Greece become pusies when they led long wars between themselves. This was moment for Alexander, who captured Athens, Korint, Thebes and other cities very simple because he wasnt exhausted. Some historics claims that Alexander empire wasnt for Greece that great, because it become only part of his empire. Simply Greece became empire as Persia was, real Greece was only one of provinces of this empire and and last try of Sparta was crushed only by the way when Alexander was fighting somewhere in Asia.

 

[Dachs]

Greece become pusies when they led long wars between themselves. This was moment for Alexander, who captured Athens, Korint, Thebes and other cities very simple because he wasnt exhausted. Some historics claims that Alexander empire wasnt for Greece that great, because it become only part of his empire. Simply Greece became empire as Persia was, real Greece was only one of provinces of this empire and and last try of Sparta was crushed only by the way when Alexander was fighting somewhere in Asia.

That's a ridiculously oversimplified version of things. The Greeks weren't exhausted - an alliance pulled together by Demosthenes managed to field a comparable army to that of the Makedonians at Chaironeia in 338 BC(E) - but after the death of Epaminondas during his final triumph over the Lakedaimonians at Mantineia, the classical Hellenic states suddenly saw the state that had destroyed the other preeminent one fail to achieve hegemony itself. (Had Epaminondas not died...it'd be a different story...) And even during the time of Alexandros, the 'real' Greek states were not a monolithic bloc united behind Makedonia; as you mentioned, there was the Spartan revolt, which was dealt with by Antipatros. In addition, Demosthenes launched a rebellion which resulted in the Lamian War, in which Antipatros himself was trapped inside the eponymous citadel until rescued by reinforcements from Krateros and Leonnatos. And during the wars of the Diadochi themselves, the Hellenic states achieved, in general, a great deal of first autonomy and then total independence, exploiting moves such as that of Kassandros, who used the Peiraeias as a base from which to make war on Polyperchon, or Demetrios Poliorketes, who also used Attika as a strongpoint. By the time the Romans were making any real influence on Greek politics, in the late third century BC(E), Makedonia failed to control much of anything south of Thessalia and Phokis, except for the garrison on the Akrokorinthos as well as an intermittent control of Athens. In short, the Greeks had plenty of fight left in them.

I'd like to see you call Kleomenes III a . .. .. .. .. ..

 

[frekk]

Since when did the Greeks become pussies? They fought to the bitter end agaisnt the Persians, but for the Romans they don't even attempt to put up a fight?

Ancient Greece's military history is ... well ... inconsistent. They handily defended themselves against the Persians, but got steamrolled by the Macedonians and then the Celts, without offering either invader much serious resistance.

Even fighting the Romans they never displayed any consistency. Pyrrhus nearly crushed Rome in an extremely bloody war, but the Roman conquest of Greece was a relatively easy one, compared with, for instance, Iberia or even Gaul.